Any sense of how big the rigid orthodoxies at each end are? They're certainly not of the same size, weight or rigidity. Nor are their orthodoxies defined by similar amounts of fact or reason.

The whole "they do it too!" thing is a pretty weak argument and does not reflect reality.

Oh, I agree. "They do it too" is an utterly ineffective and childish way to argue anything. I'm not sure we're having an argument, though. If I'm arguing for or against anything, let me know what my position is so I can make a decent attempt at it : ) (note the old school emoticon popular back in the 90's).You are right, though, the opposite ends are nowhere near equal. The NRA is rolling in dough and wields immeasurable political clout, while the gun-control folks are nowhere near as well funded or represented in our public arena. Not even at all. But here on this forum there is a bit more balance between the two sides, maybe a slight edge to the gun-control side if you factor in snarky condescension. Don't get all huffy, there are four pages here and seventy-some pages in another thread - I assure you there are snarkily condescending tidbits to be found. As to facts and reason, good god man/woman/child/other (circle applicable) - this is the United States of America! Fact and reason are as useful here as snow tires are in Riyadh.

ejbrush wrote:But here on this forum there is a bit more balance between the two sides, maybe a slight edge to the gun-control side if you factor in snarky condescension. Don't get all huffy, there are four pages here and seventy-some pages in another thread - I assure you there are snarkily condescending tidbits to be found.

I think you might be right. I'd swear I saw Detritus dropping some snarky shit around page 40. I can't remember for sure, you'll have to sift through it for the proof.

ejbrush wrote:But here on this forum there is a bit more balance between the two sides, maybe a slight edge to the gun-control side if you factor in snarky condescension. Don't get all huffy, there are four pages here and seventy-some pages in another thread - I assure you there are snarkily condescending tidbits to be found.

I think you might be right. I'd swear I saw Detritus dropping some snarky shit around page 40. I can't remember for sure, you'll have to sift through it for the proof.

I'll have you never that I've never dropped a snark in my life. Maybe a boojum or two, but never a snark.

doppel wrote:It's quite possible, actually likely, that the perps knew of the guns inside.The mere threat of confiscation has raised the value of them on the black market. Basic economics: scarcity raises value. It will increase with every more restrictive law passed. The law of unintended consequences biting us in the ass again. Expect to see more invasions.

Who's threatening to confiscate them? You must mean "the irrational fear of confiscation."

Who's suggesting we should confiscate them? Look no further than Citizen Dave in an article from this very website.

..."We need to go way beyond simply trying to cut off the supply of these rifles and ban the possession of them. But, incredibly, even banning the production and sales of new kid-killing weapons without collecting the existing ones"...

and"...no proposal that doesn't dramatically reduce the 300 million guns in circulation in the U.S..."

Ex-mayor Dave seems to have a myopic view of guns."Kid killing weapons", as if that is there only possible use. Good thing he was shown the door or Madison would be busy trying to rewrite the Constitution.

doppel wrote:It's quite possible, actually likely, that the perps knew of the guns inside.The mere threat of confiscation has raised the value of them on the black market. Basic economics: scarcity raises value. It will increase with every more restrictive law passed. The law of unintended consequences biting us in the ass again. Expect to see more invasions.

Who's threatening to confiscate them? You must mean "the irrational fear of confiscation."

Who's suggesting we should confiscate them? Look no further than Citizen Dave in an article from this very website.

Nice slippage, there, from your assertion that "the mere threat of confiscation has raised the value of them on the black market" to ex-Mayor Dave "suggesting" confiscation on this website. Bravo, sir, bravo. Aside from the fact that your twin assertions (the existence of a threat of confiscation, and the effect of that threat on the black market value of guns) live only in your mind, and have absolutely nothing to do with the case that prompted this thread, I am truly amazed at the power you grant an out-of-work politician. Why, I ask you, do we bother with the charade of elections when the people we send out of office continue to wield such influence?

Detritus wrote:Who's threatening to confiscate them? You must mean "the irrational fear of confiscation."

Who's suggesting we should confiscate them? Look no further than Citizen Dave in an article from this very website.

Nice slippage, there, from your assertion that "the mere threat of confiscation has raised the value of them on the black market" to ex-Mayor Dave "suggesting" confiscation on this website. Bravo, sir, bravo. Aside from the fact that your twin assertions (the existence of a threat of confiscation, and the effect of that threat on the black market value of guns) live only in your mind, and have absolutely nothing to do with the case that prompted this thread, I am truly amazed at the power you grant an out-of-work politician. Why, I ask you, do we bother with the charade of elections when the people we send out of office continue to wield such influence?

I grant no power to Citizen Dave, the out of work politician. I quoted him only because he's an Isthmus contributor and a former Madison Mayor. Do you really believe my two assertions exist only in my mind? Since the media hype began after the Newport tragedy, gun sales on the legal market are off the charts as witnessed by the rise in background checks. Increased demand increases prices if you believe basic economic theory. The black market value increases will likely outstrip the legal ones. If you read my original post, you will find I said their value will raise with every more restrictive law passed, not just the mere threat of confiscation. That we could expect more similar invasions.

And it looks like the theft that started this thread probably is related to the gun's black market value as only 2/3 of the stolen guns were recovered.

As to the actual possible threat of confiscation here's aquote from the NY Post:

"Last week, Gov. Cuomo suggested during a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option’’ when developing a newly restrictive policy on assault-style rifles."

The most prohibitive reason it probably won't happen is it would cost over 1 billion dollars to buy back the 1 million assault rifles in NY. Their average value is estimated to $1000. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, friend.

And it looks like the theft that started this thread probably is related to the gun's black market value as only 2/3 of the stolen guns were recovered.

More speculation

As to the actual possible threat of confiscation here's aquote from the NY Post:

"Last week, Gov. Cuomo suggested during a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option’’ when developing a newly restrictive policy on assault-style rifles."

The most prohibitive reason it probably won't happen is it would cost over 1 billion dollars to buy back the 1 million assault rifles in NY. Their average value is estimated to $1000. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, friend.

"Actual possible," eh? And a buy-back = "confiscation?" Which even you admit "probably won't happen?"

And it looks like the theft that started this thread probably is related to the gun's black market value as only 2/3 of the stolen guns were recovered.

More speculation

As to the actual possible threat of confiscation here's aquote from the NY Post:

"Last week, Gov. Cuomo suggested during a radio interview that “confiscation could be an option’’ when developing a newly restrictive policy on assault-style rifles."

The most prohibitive reason it probably won't happen is it would cost over 1 billion dollars to buy back the 1 million assault rifles in NY. Their average value is estimated to $1000. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, friend.

"Actual possible," eh? And a buy-back = "confiscation?" Which even you admit "probably won't happen?"

I don't think I'm the one smoking here.

Confiscation was Cuomo's word. Prices do rise when scarcity occurs. The perps knew of the guns before the invasion. Being stolen, the guns are black market. And yes, it is speculation that as guns become harder for criminals to get, invasions to obtain them will rise. But it is logical.

The pipe reference was just an old fashioned way of saying "So there". Oopsie. Better comeback by you than comment from me.

I believe your Albuquerque link should be in the gun thread, not one about a home invasion in Fulton. I'm done bickering with you over semantics, have a nice day, friend.

doppel wrote:I believe your Albuquerque link should be in the gun thread, not one about a home invasion in Fulton. I'm done bickering with you over semantics, have a nice day, friend.

I was simply contrasting the irrational, speculative fear of government confiscation of guns with the very real deaths that resulted from the easy availability of guns. Abstract concerns versus concrete realities. I don't think "semantics" describes that very well.

ejbrush wrote:You are right, though, the opposite ends are nowhere near equal. The NRA is rolling in dough and wields immeasurable political clout, while the gun-control folks are nowhere near as well funded or represented in our public arena.

In fact, the NRA does not have nearly the money that you think, and it's registered support includes under 2% of the American population. Recent polls routinely put opposition to NRA policies around 70%.

The NRA is a chihuahua, nipping at the heels of America. Big mouth, little teeth. Time for the big dog to wake up and bite back. Hard.

ejbrush wrote: Certainly - but then there are times when having a shotgun with a 16" long barrel would be legitimately useful (deer hunting in thick brush). An arbitrary federal law has prohibited since shotguns with barrels shorter than 18" since 1934, and I can't recall ever hearing anyone blather on about it being a threat to mom, apple pie and the American Way of Life.

But they're not prohibited. They subject to either a $5 or $200 tax, but perfectly legal to buy and own under federal law.